Let's tackle the logic and evidence together. Your counter is that if someone can conceive of sneak-thievery, Wallace could of. Yet, it took 40 years for someone to think of the sneak-thievery scenario. My point is that returning the cashbox is not what you would expect someone to do if they were staging a robbery, not that someone could not conceive it but the planner would reject it as too risky.

I think your appeal to circular reasoning is not accurate, in my view, especially when Wallace writes about the case (in his unpublished memoir) he never mentions sneak-thievery as an explanation. Remember, we are assuming Wallace is guilty so when he writes his memoir we are getting a good idea of his plan, what he wants us to think happened. I also find it bizarre and inconsistent that Wallace would think a burglar would drop coins and leave the cabinet lid on the floor but return the cashbox. Even if Wallace was in a rush; it was so central to his plan.

BTW, in my book I publish extracts from his memoir that have never been published before. You will find them very interesting, I'm sure.

And when he entered the house alone before getting the Johnstons, could he not rectify any mistakes? If he was guilty, entering the house alone makes good sense - surely he was checking everything was all right. The curtains were drawn, the lamp was out, he was alone - it would have taken seconds to take down the cashbox. If you agree with Murphy's account (you may not) Wallace had the presence of mind to fiddle about drying towels...

I agree it is possible he mistakenly replaces the cashbox and inadvertently spills coins and knocks off the cabinet lid (although he did point out the lid on the floor, which makes it appear staged, if he was guilty). But he is making quite a few mistakes at this point.

We seem to agree that replacing the cashbox is best explained by saying it was a mistake, despite its central importance to his plan that his wife was murdered by a burglar, and his opportunity to correct it later. In fact, I think we all agree on this. But it is a surprising mistake, one you would not have expected him to make. Therefore, it is a weakness in the Wallace theory (because you need another assumption - it was a surprising mistake). There are many others, of course, as there are with any theory, I must stress.

And I suggest, it is even more surprising that he involved the cashbox at all because of the implication that a close friend or colleague was involved. At the very least, they would be questioned.

Hi Antony,

Yes, you make some good points. And, of course, assuming Wallace was guilty, we only have Wallace's word that he didn't enter the house before alerting the neighbours to the supposed problem with the door, which would have given him another opportunity to tidy things up.

Yes, you make some good points. And, of course, assuming Wallace was guilty, we only have Wallace's word that he didn't enter the house before alerting the neighbours to the supposed problem with the door, which would have given him another opportunity to tidy things up.

John, that's a good point. In fact, we do not know when Wallace staged the robbery, if he was guilty, apart from it was before the Johnstons entered. So, he would have had all of the tram journey home to think about what he still had to do or anything he had forgotten.

I will make an announcement here nearer the time. BTW, discussing this case with you, AS, Rod and others have helped shape my views. It contains a new theory - the Accomplice theory - as well as evidence presented for the first time: timing tests, MacFall's original, unsigned autopsy report and excerpts from Wallace's unpublished memoir. I also provide a fresh analysis of the phone call, having spoken to experts about the phone system. So, I hope some things will be clearer, but overall the case is unsolvable i.e. you cannot prove one solution to be correct. In fact, I would say that 2-3 of the 5 theories are close to each other, in terms of plausibility, based on the evidence we have.

I will make an announcement here nearer the time. BTW, discussing this case with you, AS, Rod and others have helped shape my views. It contains a new theory - the Accomplice theory - as well as evidence presented for the first time: timing tests, MacFall's original, unsigned autopsy report and excerpts from Wallace's unpublished memoir. I also provide a fresh analysis of the phone call, having spoken to experts about the phone system. So, I hope some things will be clearer, but overall the case is unsolvable i.e. you cannot prove one solution to be correct. In fact, I would say that 2-3 of the 5 theories are close to each other, in terms of plausibility, based on the evidence we have.

Hi Antony,

I am looking forward very much to this. I will order it as soon as possible. Will it be available in paperback or hard form?

I think that despite whatever disagreements we have about the case, it is undeniable that your upcoming book will be the most thorough dissection of all the angles and possible permutations ever written. By considering all possibilities from various sources and previous scholars, and with the benefit of the most up to date info available, I don't think there is a discussion as well informed that has ever happened about JW's murder than the one occurring right now on these boards. This is as a result of your 1st book, this thread here, and now the 2nd updated book coming out shortly.

I also credit the scholarship of the 21st century for really moving things forward from an informational standpoint. Murphy unearthing several new facts (including JW's real age and Parry's true alibi.) And whether one agrees with his theory or not, John Gannon's book definitely was the most chock full of pure particulars and raw factual information. The knowledge base has really expanded in the last 2 decades as compared to what Jonathan Goodman was working with. But ultimately, I have to think your book will consider the Wallace case more comprehensively than it ever has been.

I think you, and we as a collective to a smaller extent, are doing this case justice!

I agree that the Parry and accomplice theory, with robbery being the motive, has many problems. For instance, as Wallace himself made abundantly clear at his trial, there was relativity little in the way of insurance takings, at least when compared with a good day. The date in question must therefore have been about the worst possible time to commit a robbery. And Parry, who had covered Wallace's round many times, must surely have realized this. Why then take the risk of conspiring to commit a robbery for such a meagre return, particularly as he now has to share the money with somebody else?

John,

Thanks! We seem to be on the same train of thought regarding the problems of Parry and an Accomplice or even Parry by himself.

Do you think we should give some more weight in our discussions to outlier scenarios, such as the lover one you mentioned? Perhaps, the current options we are considering, although they seem to rightly be the dominant few most likely, have so many problems with them that outlier possibilities are a better option despite how seemingly obtuse they might appear.

I am looking forward very much to this. I will order it as soon as possible. Will it be available in paperback or hard form?

I think that despite whatever disagreements we have about the case, it is undeniable that your upcoming book will be the most thorough dissection of all the angles and possible permutations ever written. By considering all possibilities from various sources and previous scholars, and with the benefit of the most up to date info available, I don't think there is a discussion as well informed that has ever happened about JW's murder than the one occurring right now on these boards. This is as a result of your 1st book, this thread here, and now the 2nd updated book coming out shortly.

I also credit the scholarship of the 21st century for really moving things forward from an informational standpoint. Murphy unearthing several new facts (including JW's real age and Parry's true alibi.) And whether one agrees with his theory or not, John Gannon's book definitely was the most chock full of pure particulars and raw factual information. The knowledge base has really expanded in the last 2 decades as compared to what Jonathan Goodman was working with. But ultimately, I have to think your book will consider the Wallace case more comprehensively than it ever has been.

I think you, and we as a collective to a smaller extent, are doing this case justice!

AS, thank you for your comments. Yes, this forum has been truly outstanding for the quality of the posts. The case could have been solved at the time, in my opinion. That is not to say the police did not have the correct verdict, but if they did, they did not demonstrate it. Better forensics, better follow-ups on all suspects etc...

Yes, I agree that Murphy and Gannon are important books. Murphy did some excellent research and is good at advancing an argument, but I was disappointed with two aspects. He assumed it was either Wallace or Parry (perhaps that is understandable given the historical context) and he was very selective in his facts in exonerating Parry from having any involvement with the call, and a little selective in his evidence regarding the milk boy.

What is interesting is the debate has moved on from a dichotomy to examining other possibilities, including P. D. James. This does not mean the more recent theories are correct, of course. But as you say, the case has been examined more thoroughly.

I have tried to examine the case impartially, placing all the theories side by side. In my examination of the trial, I highlight where I believe Wallace's testimony/statements are the most perplexing (regarding locks and bolts), so there is no shying away from any theory! I'm sure this will reinforce your verdict, but other aspects might give you second thoughts, too.

If Wallace plans the murder and intentionally replaces the cashbox, he must realise the thief knew the location of the cashbox. This limits the number of potential suspects to just 15. He cannot just assume the police will believe the thief threatened Julia to reveal the location - he still had to know there was a cashbox somewhere. So, not only is the murderer most likely one of 15 (or at least someone who knew these 15) but he is knowingly implicating his closest friends and colleagues. Why would Wallace plan like this? Why go for the cashbox at all? The Anfield Burglar was not targeting insurance agents - so why would Wallace make stealing the insurance money his plan?

Let's also see what we can agree on. If Wallace replaced the cashbox it was a mistake. This is what you suggest when you say he might have replaced the cashbox out of habit - that is the reason I use in the Wallace reconstruction in my book, too. But is it plausible when he remembers to scatter three coins and pull off the cabinet lid? And the staged robbery is as central to his plan as the Qualtrough call. He would know exactly what he had to do. The same way with the mackintosh and the clean-up.

BTW, sneak-thievery-gone-wrong as the best explanation for the return of the cashbox was first suggested by the American author, Robert Hussey in 1972 as part of his Parry theory.

Antony,

There are some good points here which I think clearly put the theory of Wallace simply making a mistake on somewhat shaky ground.

I guess I view it algebraically. Theory A or Theory B. We agree both are implausible on the face of it (A- a robber wouldn't replace the cashbox, B- Wallace wouldn't have it as part of his plan to mimic that). So, which is the best alternative explanation for each of these theories? What is more likely?

I would like to note that if the cash box being replaced was due to sneak-thievery, this implies that JW did NOT catch the culprit in the act. Otherwise, we are back with the original problem (that mandates the sneak theft as an explanation in the 1st place; why would a thief neatly put back the box on the hi shelf with the lid on it AFTER committing a brutal murder.) This narrows the possibility in my view, because now the only plausible explanation is that the murderer managed to successfully steal some money and replace the cash box and went undetected and was only LATER caught by JW. This seems unlikely to me, but I understand this is the view of some. Rod asserts that perhaps the coins on the floor tipped off JW and that is how the culprit was caught after the fact.

So let's compare the 2 scenarios in entirety to explain the cash-box. Either Wallace makes a mistake, pumping full of adrenaline or a thief manages to rob JW and go undetected for some time, until he is later caught for some reason, but only after he has replaced the cash-box in an effort to go undetected?